Your response has raised so many questions in my head but I know it can be annoying when you're bombarded with them over a forum so I'll try and keep this to a minimum. Bare in mind I'm under the assumption that you accept the scientific explanations for how we got to where we are (from the big bang, through a string of cosmology to abiogenesis and evolution). If this isn't the case I'll have to change the questions.
Does God have a plan? Most people seem to think so. If he does have a plan, how specific is it? And can we screw up his plan? I ask this because if God isn't responsible for natural distasters, death and such things, it has profound implications as to his nature. If he were omniscient he would know the consequences of creating a particular set of laws and would have known in advance that he would be killing people, and hence responsibility for this does lay in God's metaphorical hands. To lift the responsibility from God, we must strip him of his knowledge of the events to come. But if he can make a plan accurate enough to result in humans eventually coming to be he must be PRETTY knowledgable! It would figure that if God were smart enough to intentionally create sets of laws which would result in humans, he would be well aware of the terror, disease, famine and natural disasters which would reek havoc upon his blessed creation. How do you lift the responsibility from him?
(If you take the young earth creation explanation for origins of life then allow me to edit the question)
Your little poetic paragraph about God being love shining down on us was enjoyable. I can agree with it almost entirely. The only difference between the two of us is that I wouldn't first state that God is love. I'd settle for "love is all around us, beaming down on us like the sun, but constantly. Some people sit in the shade or put on sunglasses to varying degrees. These people should step out into the sun and let the love and happiness surround and engulf them, filling their hearts and making them feel whole". My only legitimate problem with your version of this is how you state that God is love to begin with (of course
). We already have a word for "love"- that word is "love". If God IS love then the definition of God becomes the same as the definition of love. No creation, no children, no supernatural-ness. That isn't what love is/does. UNLESS you mean to say "God is (among other things*) love.
*other things include: creator of the universe, father of Jesus Christ, non-physical entity, incomprehensible, etc."
My pedantic side is running wild, heh.
Does God have a plan? Most people seem to think so. If he does have a plan, how specific is it? And can we screw up his plan? I ask this because if God isn't responsible for natural distasters, death and such things, it has profound implications as to his nature. If he were omniscient he would know the consequences of creating a particular set of laws and would have known in advance that he would be killing people, and hence responsibility for this does lay in God's metaphorical hands. To lift the responsibility from God, we must strip him of his knowledge of the events to come. But if he can make a plan accurate enough to result in humans eventually coming to be he must be PRETTY knowledgable! It would figure that if God were smart enough to intentionally create sets of laws which would result in humans, he would be well aware of the terror, disease, famine and natural disasters which would reek havoc upon his blessed creation. How do you lift the responsibility from him?
(If you take the young earth creation explanation for origins of life then allow me to edit the question)
Your little poetic paragraph about God being love shining down on us was enjoyable. I can agree with it almost entirely. The only difference between the two of us is that I wouldn't first state that God is love. I'd settle for "love is all around us, beaming down on us like the sun, but constantly. Some people sit in the shade or put on sunglasses to varying degrees. These people should step out into the sun and let the love and happiness surround and engulf them, filling their hearts and making them feel whole". My only legitimate problem with your version of this is how you state that God is love to begin with (of course
). We already have a word for "love"- that word is "love". If God IS love then the definition of God becomes the same as the definition of love. No creation, no children, no supernatural-ness. That isn't what love is/does. UNLESS you mean to say "God is (among other things*) love. *other things include: creator of the universe, father of Jesus Christ, non-physical entity, incomprehensible, etc."
My pedantic side is running wild, heh.
